Because I think it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. I know I'll have people screaming at me that this isn't related to Apple's patent wars at all, but whatever. I tend to agree that it's a bit disingenuous to complain about somebody suing you when you are suing them right back. It pretty much comes across as Apple screaming, "But they started it!!"
You should really go back and read the article again. You completely missed the point.
Apple is complaining about a very specific behaviour here, not just that Samsung is suing them over patents. Instead of just chiming in with "I don't like patents and both sides are the same" (or words to that effect), you might want to actually do some reading and research into the concepts being talked about.
Ok then, so you're agreeing with me. The current patent system PUNISHES you for creating truly game-changing technology. Because you either make it impotent by going the Frand route, or you hold it to yourself and slow down innovation for decades so that you can use this technology as a weapon to protect yourself from lawsuits.
Patents aren't meant to be weapons. They're being used as such, but this is not the intention. Patents are meant to protect investments. Inventions take time and money, whether it's a large corporation or an independent inventor. In either case, a patent is meant to prevent others from simply copying the invention for themselves. The F/RAND categorization exists to be attached based on the decision of an independent court if it determines that withholding that invention stifles the advancement of the technology by others, but awards the patent holder a fixed and constant revenue stream as a compromise. I don't see how this is at all punishing inventors.
Ok then, so you're agreeing with me. The current patent system PUNISHES you for creating truly game-changing technology. Because you either make it impotent by going the Frand route, or you hold it to yourself and slow down innovation for decades so that you can use this technology as a weapon to protect yourself from lawsuits.
Well.. isn't that the whole point of the patent system?! Giving the patent holder exclusive rights to their inventions?! Sure there will be those who will use the patents as way to differentiate their products. I don't see anything wrong with that. Every other company, including Apple and MS, have committed something to the standard body.
I'd prefer not to read any more Mueller than I already have to.
I know Apple is asserting their claims based on Frand patents held by the other companies. What I'm saying is that this just further proves that the system is messed up because it means that if you develop something SO groundbreaking, it becomes useless when someone wants to sue you over a glass slab.
What does Corning and their Gorilla glass patents and trademarks have to do with this?
Well.. isn't that the whole point of the patent system?! Giving the patent holder exclusive rights to their inventions?! Sure there will be those who will use the patents as way to differentiate their products. I don't see anything wrong with that. Every other company, including Apple and MS, have committed something to the standard body.
Because with the current trend, companies will now start reconsidering submitting those patents to the patent body because it will be much more profitable to withhold them and then sue people, or at least keep them for bargaining chips.
Patents aren't meant to be weapons. They're being used as such, but this is not the intention. Patents are meant to protect investments. Inventions take time and money, whether it's a large corporation or an independent inventor. In either case, a patent is meant to prevent others from simply copying the invention for themselves. The F/RAND categorization exists to be attached based on the decision of an independent court if it determines that withholding that invention stifles the advancement of the technology by others, but awards the patent holder a fixed and constant revenue stream as a compromise. I don't see how this is at all punishing inventors.
Because it will be more profitable to withhold them from the Frand organization as either a weapon or protection against litigation by others. All developers suffer because they can no longer benefit from the research of others.
If the frand organization can force a company to turn over their patents, then the developer suffers because he loses all other choice for his invention.
The current patent system (as in, TODAY, not traditionally) no longer rewards industry changing inventions because apparently all the big companies are too busy suing each other.
Because with the current trend, companies will now start reconsidering submitting those patents to the patent body because it will be much more profitable to withhold them and then sue people, or at least keep them for bargaining chips.
There are many alternatives. If someone didn't want to incorporate their tech to the standard body then another technology will be used and that patent will worth nothing. There many who collecting $1 to $3 from the 300M phones sold each year.
So apple shouldn't pay for fundamental technology, but they can sue the pants off of someone because they got a trade dress for a black slab?
Apple is paying for the underlying fundamental technology. No one disputes that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
Exactly...Apple started suing everyone then complains when companies start building their patent portfolios to protect against being sued.....
You don't seem to understand what the FRAND standard licensing means. It's a whole other class of patents entirely, and can not be used for defense in the same way other patents can be. You don't really care to understand that, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
you have been drinking to much cider.....from your examples...Like what Apple did to AT&T to carry the iPhone? Or like Apple is doing to Intel to continue to carry their chips and not go with their own chips (A5?) in Apple laptops and desktops? In fact OEMs do this all the time.... They use leverage to gain better pricing and position.
Now you're really not making sense. AT&T and Apple negotiated a contract, and Intel chips are a product that Apple buys. They have nothing to do with patents on fundamental standards or with FRAND rules.
So apple shouldn't pay for fundamental technology, but they can sue the pants off of someone because they got a trade dress for a black slab?
Ah, no. They shouldn't have to pay beyond normal f/rand licensing, which is a separate issue altogether to that of the trade dress (copying of Apple's products).
Seriously, do you have a problem with the argument that F/RAND-encumbered patents should not/cannot be used as counterclaims in a patent suit? I am interested in your thoughts.
I was wondering when people were going to address this issue rather than simply throw out opinions without any logic to back up their opinion. Simply saying it's the pot calling the kettle black is not logic. It's a cop out and shows a gross lack of understanding of the types of patents involved or perhaps it's because people simply read the headline and jumped to conclusions before reading the article.
Because I think it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
The question here is, who is the pot ... maybe all of them are.
Whatever. The whole system is fucked up. It's a bloody war out there.
Now we have the Kodak patents ...
Edit: Can you imagine if Google had won the Nortel patents then buying Motorola ... They would be unstoppable. Apple and just about everyone else dodged a bullet there.
I find it funny (and more than a little sad) that everyone is jumping on solipsism for his comment. He's a member who (Largely) sides with apple in a given debate. He makes statements supporting them (even ones just as short) and people agree, even some of the same people questioning him now.
People are going to question faulty logic regardless of who the poster is or what their posting history is. People simply wanted to know why he was in disagreement with apple and when he couldn't provide something of value it came off as though he simply didn't read the article or didn't know what he was talking about as it relates to FRAND and other standards related patents.
I'd prefer not to read any more Mueller than I already have to.
I know Apple is asserting their claims based on Frand patents held by the other companies. What I'm saying is that this just further proves that the system is messed up because it means that if you develop something SO groundbreaking, it becomes useless when someone wants to sue you over a glass slab.
Why is the FRAND patent useless when you get sued because you copied someone else's design?
But look at the playback. Apple sues these other companies for patents and trade dress, some of the patents VERY broad. These companies fire back, and Apple asserts that these companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using patents.
I think that's why solipsism might not buy Apple's position.
It seems to me like this is another point for the "patents are broken" argument. Basically, if you create something SO useful and SO fundamental, you're SOL in the current market, because the really important patents don't give you much in the way of lawsuit protection, let alone an arsenal.
And they shouldn't. If you want to hit the jackpot, then don't use the FRAND patent system and hope for a more favorable outcome in the court room. Why should FRAND patents and other standards related patents give you lawsuit protection?
Explain to me why FRAND patents should be lawsuit protection against legitimate claims. It's an automatic win for the FRAND patent holder and has nothing to do with the other case. The companies were going to get what they were always going to get with an FRAND patent.
The companies clearly felt going the FRAND route would be more beneficial to their bottom line when they applied for such patents. I'm lost here. I want good solid logic... I believe the patent system is broken but not necessarily as it relates to FRAND patents in general.
In order to get other companies to license the patents, these companies try to get FRAND status and then when they are sued because they infringed on someone else's non FRAND patent they come back with an FRAND as a defense of some sort. So they want double compensation when they were the company benefiting from people licensing your product rather than develop their own in the first place? Where am I going wrong here?
It sounds like the companies want all the benefits of FRAND status but not the downside of the FRAND status.
Because I think it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. I know I'll have people screaming at me that this isn't related to Apple's patent wars at all, but whatever. I tend to agree that it's a bit disingenuous to complain about somebody suing you when you are suing them right back. It pretty much comes across as Apple screaming, "But they started it!!"
Sorry apple did not start it if you read fosspatent apple states that samsung sued them first.
Because I think it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. I know I'll have people screaming at me that this isn't related to Apple's patent wars at all, but whatever. I tend to agree that it's a bit disingenuous to complain about somebody suing you when you are suing them right back. It pretty much comes across as Apple screaming, "But they started it!!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Absolutely. +1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox
Oh Apple, really..?
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
I would have to agree......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacksons
DED - sell your Apple shares; it is impacting your ability to think clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte
with you on that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Such rich irony...
Funny how more and more people on Apple Insider are starting to grow discontent with Apple's hypocrisy.
Funny how more and more people on Apple Insider are starting to grow discontent with Apple's hypocrisy.
Its also funny how only one of them even attempts to put in some logic behind their claim. Its a classic case of I read the headline but not the article.
Comments
Because I think it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. I know I'll have people screaming at me that this isn't related to Apple's patent wars at all, but whatever. I tend to agree that it's a bit disingenuous to complain about somebody suing you when you are suing them right back. It pretty much comes across as Apple screaming, "But they started it!!"
You should really go back and read the article again. You completely missed the point.
Apple is complaining about a very specific behaviour here, not just that Samsung is suing them over patents. Instead of just chiming in with "I don't like patents and both sides are the same" (or words to that effect), you might want to actually do some reading and research into the concepts being talked about.
Ok then, so you're agreeing with me. The current patent system PUNISHES you for creating truly game-changing technology. Because you either make it impotent by going the Frand route, or you hold it to yourself and slow down innovation for decades so that you can use this technology as a weapon to protect yourself from lawsuits.
Patents aren't meant to be weapons. They're being used as such, but this is not the intention. Patents are meant to protect investments. Inventions take time and money, whether it's a large corporation or an independent inventor. In either case, a patent is meant to prevent others from simply copying the invention for themselves. The F/RAND categorization exists to be attached based on the decision of an independent court if it determines that withholding that invention stifles the advancement of the technology by others, but awards the patent holder a fixed and constant revenue stream as a compromise. I don't see how this is at all punishing inventors.
Ok then, so you're agreeing with me. The current patent system PUNISHES you for creating truly game-changing technology. Because you either make it impotent by going the Frand route, or you hold it to yourself and slow down innovation for decades so that you can use this technology as a weapon to protect yourself from lawsuits.
Well.. isn't that the whole point of the patent system?! Giving the patent holder exclusive rights to their inventions?! Sure there will be those who will use the patents as way to differentiate their products. I don't see anything wrong with that. Every other company, including Apple and MS, have committed something to the standard body.
I'd prefer not to read any more Mueller than I already have to.
I know Apple is asserting their claims based on Frand patents held by the other companies. What I'm saying is that this just further proves that the system is messed up because it means that if you develop something SO groundbreaking, it becomes useless when someone wants to sue you over a glass slab.
What does Corning and their Gorilla glass patents and trademarks have to do with this?
Why bring up their "glass slabs"?
Are they even suing anyone over them?
Well.. isn't that the whole point of the patent system?! Giving the patent holder exclusive rights to their inventions?! Sure there will be those who will use the patents as way to differentiate their products. I don't see anything wrong with that. Every other company, including Apple and MS, have committed something to the standard body.
Because with the current trend, companies will now start reconsidering submitting those patents to the patent body because it will be much more profitable to withhold them and then sue people, or at least keep them for bargaining chips.
What does Corning and their Gorilla glass patents and trademarks have to do with this?
Why bring up their "glass slabs"?
Are they even suing anyone over them?
Corning has nothing to do with it. Also, not funny, try again.
Glass slab/Black Slab. Aka the "community design" held by the ipad.
Or, Slide to Unlock. Something with prior art, not to mention hundreds of years of "real life" application (doors) if you want to go that far back.
Patents aren't meant to be weapons. They're being used as such, but this is not the intention. Patents are meant to protect investments. Inventions take time and money, whether it's a large corporation or an independent inventor. In either case, a patent is meant to prevent others from simply copying the invention for themselves. The F/RAND categorization exists to be attached based on the decision of an independent court if it determines that withholding that invention stifles the advancement of the technology by others, but awards the patent holder a fixed and constant revenue stream as a compromise. I don't see how this is at all punishing inventors.
Because it will be more profitable to withhold them from the Frand organization as either a weapon or protection against litigation by others. All developers suffer because they can no longer benefit from the research of others.
If the frand organization can force a company to turn over their patents, then the developer suffers because he loses all other choice for his invention.
The current patent system (as in, TODAY, not traditionally) no longer rewards industry changing inventions because apparently all the big companies are too busy suing each other.
Because with the current trend, companies will now start reconsidering submitting those patents to the patent body because it will be much more profitable to withhold them and then sue people, or at least keep them for bargaining chips.
There are many alternatives. If someone didn't want to incorporate their tech to the standard body then another technology will be used and that patent will worth nothing. There many who collecting $1 to $3 from the 300M phones sold each year.
So apple shouldn't pay for fundamental technology, but they can sue the pants off of someone because they got a trade dress for a black slab?
Apple is paying for the underlying fundamental technology. No one disputes that.
Exactly...Apple started suing everyone then complains when companies start building their patent portfolios to protect against being sued.....
You don't seem to understand what the FRAND standard licensing means. It's a whole other class of patents entirely, and can not be used for defense in the same way other patents can be. You don't really care to understand that, do you?
you have been drinking to much cider.....from your examples...Like what Apple did to AT&T to carry the iPhone? Or like Apple is doing to Intel to continue to carry their chips and not go with their own chips (A5?) in Apple laptops and desktops? In fact OEMs do this all the time.... They use leverage to gain better pricing and position.
Now you're really not making sense. AT&T and Apple negotiated a contract, and Intel chips are a product that Apple buys. They have nothing to do with patents on fundamental standards or with FRAND rules.
So apple shouldn't pay for fundamental technology, but they can sue the pants off of someone because they got a trade dress for a black slab?
Ah, no. They shouldn't have to pay beyond normal f/rand licensing, which is a separate issue altogether to that of the trade dress (copying of Apple's products).
Seriously, do you have a problem with the argument that F/RAND-encumbered patents should not/cannot be used as counterclaims in a patent suit? I am interested in your thoughts.
I was wondering when people were going to address this issue rather than simply throw out opinions without any logic to back up their opinion. Simply saying it's the pot calling the kettle black is not logic. It's a cop out and shows a gross lack of understanding of the types of patents involved or perhaps it's because people simply read the headline and jumped to conclusions before reading the article.
Because I think it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
The question here is, who is the pot ... maybe all of them are.
Whatever. The whole system is fucked up. It's a bloody war out there.
Now we have the Kodak patents ...
Edit: Can you imagine if Google had won the Nortel patents then buying Motorola ... They would be unstoppable. Apple and just about everyone else dodged a bullet there.
I find it funny (and more than a little sad) that everyone is jumping on solipsism for his comment. He's a member who (Largely) sides with apple in a given debate. He makes statements supporting them (even ones just as short) and people agree, even some of the same people questioning him now.
People are going to question faulty logic regardless of who the poster is or what their posting history is. People simply wanted to know why he was in disagreement with apple and when he couldn't provide something of value it came off as though he simply didn't read the article or didn't know what he was talking about as it relates to FRAND and other standards related patents.
I'd prefer not to read any more Mueller than I already have to.
I know Apple is asserting their claims based on Frand patents held by the other companies. What I'm saying is that this just further proves that the system is messed up because it means that if you develop something SO groundbreaking, it becomes useless when someone wants to sue you over a glass slab.
Why is the FRAND patent useless when you get sued because you copied someone else's design?
Which may be true.
But look at the playback. Apple sues these other companies for patents and trade dress, some of the patents VERY broad. These companies fire back, and Apple asserts that these companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using patents.
I think that's why solipsism might not buy Apple's position.
It seems to me like this is another point for the "patents are broken" argument. Basically, if you create something SO useful and SO fundamental, you're SOL in the current market, because the really important patents don't give you much in the way of lawsuit protection, let alone an arsenal.
And they shouldn't. If you want to hit the jackpot, then don't use the FRAND patent system and hope for a more favorable outcome in the court room. Why should FRAND patents and other standards related patents give you lawsuit protection?
Explain to me why FRAND patents should be lawsuit protection against legitimate claims. It's an automatic win for the FRAND patent holder and has nothing to do with the other case. The companies were going to get what they were always going to get with an FRAND patent.
The companies clearly felt going the FRAND route would be more beneficial to their bottom line when they applied for such patents. I'm lost here. I want good solid logic... I believe the patent system is broken but not necessarily as it relates to FRAND patents in general.
In order to get other companies to license the patents, these companies try to get FRAND status and then when they are sued because they infringed on someone else's non FRAND patent they come back with an FRAND as a defense of some sort. So they want double compensation when they were the company benefiting from people licensing your product rather than develop their own in the first place? Where am I going wrong here?
It sounds like the companies want all the benefits of FRAND status but not the downside of the FRAND status.
Because I think it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. I know I'll have people screaming at me that this isn't related to Apple's patent wars at all, but whatever. I tend to agree that it's a bit disingenuous to complain about somebody suing you when you are suing them right back. It pretty much comes across as Apple screaming, "But they started it!!"
Sorry apple did not start it if you read fosspatent apple states that samsung sued them first.
I'm not buying Apple's position on this matter.
Because I think it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. I know I'll have people screaming at me that this isn't related to Apple's patent wars at all, but whatever. I tend to agree that it's a bit disingenuous to complain about somebody suing you when you are suing them right back. It pretty much comes across as Apple screaming, "But they started it!!"
Absolutely. +1
Oh Apple, really..?
I would have to agree......
DED - sell your Apple shares; it is impacting your ability to think clearly.
with you on that one.
Such rich irony...
Funny how more and more people on Apple Insider are starting to grow discontent with Apple's hypocrisy.
Funny how more and more people on Apple Insider are starting to grow discontent with Apple's hypocrisy.
Its also funny how only one of them even attempts to put in some logic behind their claim. Its a classic case of I read the headline but not the article.